The Politics of Poverty
“This House seek(s) to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among
Canadian children by the year 2000.”
Despite the House of Commons unanimously passing this all-party
resolution November 24, 1989, Canada’s child poverty rate continues to be
amongst the highest in the developed world. Indeed, for many Canadians, the
primary campaign issue in this election is: What is your party prepared to
do about eliminating child poverty?
According to UNICEF, Canada’s child poverty rate of 14.9% during the
late 1990’s was among the highest in the developed world. This is the case
even though Canada is a wealthier nation –using the total value of goods
and services or GDP -- than just about every other developed nation.
Denmark’s child poverty rate of 2.4% represents a virtual elimination of
child poverty. This is also the case in Finland, Sweden, and Norway. As a
public health researcher trying to come to grips with why this might be the
case, I reviewed Canadian public health documents that have accumulated
since the famous 1974 Lalonde Report that put Canada on the world map as a
leader in “health promotion.”
Health Canada’s seems to be onside. Its 1998 Statistical Report on
the Health of Canadians stated:
In the case of poverty, unemployment, stress, and violence, the
influence on health is direct, negative and often shocking for a
country as wealthy and as highly regarded as Canada.
The Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) 2000 annual meeting
approved the resolution:
Be it resolved that CPHA... promote dialogue with the public about the
persistence of poverty in the midst of economic growth and declining
unemployment rates; the negative effects that poverty has on the health
of individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole; and
solutions/strategies for reducing poverty and its negative health
consequences.
The appreciation of the importance of poverty is present. Why is
nothing being done? An increasing body of research finds that child poverty
rates cannot be attributed to failings of those children and families who
are poor. It does not even lie with the presence or absence of
well-meaning intentions of policymakers. It reflects the general operation
of the economy – heavily influenced by the politics – of a nation.
International studies reveal the best predictors of child poverty rates are
a) the percentage of low-paid workers within a nation; b) levels of minimum
wages; and c) percentage of national resources or revenues invested in
social infrastructure.
Among developed nations, Canada has the highest percentage of
low-paid workers (23%) exceeded only by the USA. Our minimum wages are
among the lowest. Despite Canadians’ beliefs about the generosity of our
welfare state, we actually have one of the least developed welfare states.
Indeed, Canada is identified by scholars as a “liberal welfare state” that
shares characteristics with nations such as the USA, UK, Ireland,
Australia, and New Zealand. These nations spend relatively little on
social and entitlement programs which results in higher levels of child and
general poverty, and greater income and wealth inequality.
How does a nation get to be a liberal welfare state as opposed to a
nation that takes the well-being of its population seriously? The answer is
deceptively simply. The best predictor of child poverty rates is also the
best predictor of jurisdictional commitment to providing its citizens with
a modicum of security and well-being: The influence of “left” parties in
government as measured by “Left Cabinet Share.”
Left cabinet share is the percentage of Cabinet members that are
members of a labour or social democratic party. Canada and the USA have
never had a Federal labour, CCF, socialist, or the NDP in power. How strong
is the relationship between left cabinet share and child poverty rates?
Among 14 developed nations between 1946 and 1990, the presence of left
parties in government is strongly related to the probability that a child
will experience poverty. To illustrate Sweden had a 32% left cabinet
share and a child poverty rate of 2.4%. Belgium had a 13% left cabinet
share and a 6% child poverty rate. Canada has 0% left cabinet share and a
14% rate. And the USA also has the lowest left cabinet share at 0% and a
25% child poverty rate. Why is this so ? Social democratic parties are
committed to full employment, equitable distribution of income and wealth,
and provision of a strong social safety net. Indeed, most of the
progressive changes that have occurred in Canada such as Medicare and
Pensions and most recently, increased spending on housing daycare, and
transportation -- have come about during minority government situations.
The electoral implications of these findings are clear. Vicente
Navarro of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health points
out:
For those wishing to optimize the health of populations by reducing
social and income
inequalities, it seems advisable to support political forces such as
the labor movement and social democratic parties, which have
traditionally supported larger, more successful redistributive
policies.
If you vote Conservative or Liberal in January, you are voting for child
poverty.
Dennis Raphael, PhD, Associate Professor at the School of Health Policy and
Management at York University in Toronto, is editor of Social Determinants
of Health: Canadian Perspectives published by Canadian Scholars Press.
|